Apostate Verses Believer

[Drew]

The issue in Rom 11:17-22 is about being used by God for service.

How do you conclude that? I sense you need this to be the case in order for to go on to argue that to be "cut off" means to not be used in God's service rather than to lose salvation. However, I see no evidence in support of this notion that the central issue is that of being used in God's service. And, on the other hand, there are clues all over the place that the issue here is membership in God's family - and this includes salvation.

It is almost universally agreed by scholars that Romans 9-11 is one block. So let's look at key passages:

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen [Romans 9:1-5, NASB]

Is Paul lamenting the fact that Jews no longer are of service to God? Or that they are now lost? Remember the olive tree - Paul decribes the Jews as being cut off.

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? [Romans 9:21-22, NASB]

What is the issue here? Salvation or being used by God?

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. [Romans 9:30-31, NASB]

Clearly this is the same issue as that of the olive tree - the fact that Jews have been cut from the tree and Gentiles grafted in. So what is the issue here? A status of righteousness (with its obvious salvation implications). Or being used by God?

1Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. [Romans 10:1, NASB]

He is writing about the "pruned branches" - Jews who rejected Jesus. And what is the issue? Salvation? Or being used by God?

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"-that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [Romans 10:8-10, NASB]

What is Paul focusing on here? Salvation? Or being used by God.

And there more, not least this from Romans 11 itself:

11I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. [Romans 11:11, NASB]

Are you going to argue that when Paul shortly refers to Gentiles being "grafted in", he is not talking about the matter of their salvation? And if being grafted in is organically connected to salvation what does that imply about what Paul means when he refers to Jews as being pruned (cut off) from the tree?

 

[Drew]

The issue in Rom 11:17-22 is about being used by God for service.

To add to the preceding post:

25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob."
27"This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins

This comes right after the olive tree metaphor which you claim is about being "used by God for service". I say it about membership in God's family, including, of course, the matter of personal salvation. Which of these two options is supported best by these words of Paul?

 

[FreeGrace]

But surely you must understand that I could make a similar request of you in relation to James 1:27:

All good things are gifts given to us from God: Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow [James 1:17, NASB]

Not sure how that would "look". In fact, why wouldn't James be referring to the same gifts as Paul did? But, in any case, this "comeback" is just a ruse, a dodge, a sidestep, in order to deflect away from proving your own case.

Since James does not define the word "gift" in such a way as to exclude the gift of a nice job, and since God's gifts are irrevocable, does that not mean its impossible for me to lose my job? Of course not.

Totally irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of what Paul MEANT in Rom 11:29. There, we KNOW exactly what he meant by "gift" because he actually and specifically defined what he meant.

So, there's no comparison.

Besides, your example of "the gift of a nice job" is hardly adequate, since NO WHERE in the Bible is gift defined that way.

The deal is: we don't get to make up our own definitions, just to suit ourselves and our own theology. When a writer of Scripture very plainly and clearly defines what he means by 'gift', we HAVE TO accept that is what he means in Rom 11:29. There are no options.

 

[FreeGrace]

It's not a jump at all. Note what Paul says in verse 11:

11I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles,
[Romans 11:11, NASB]

Are you really going to suggest that Paul is not using the metaphor of the Gentile being grafted into the olive tree as a way of speaking about this very same issue of salvation, even if other things are also incorporated under that metaphor?

I already did.

If we have to get the details we can, but I suggest Paul is clearly addressing the broad issue that membership in God's true family including, of course, salvation is accessible to Gentiles, but that these Gentiles should not look down on unbelieving Jews.

One is free to suggest whatever they want, but the issue of eternal security doesn't come from just Rom 11:29, but from many passages.

What could Paul possibly intend us to understand when he refers to the possibility of the believing Gentiles being cut off?

I already told you, and very clearly. What words weren't understood?

You propose an answer to that - I will get to that in my next post.

I propose nothing. I gave you the answer already.

 

[FreeGrace]

How do you conclude that? I sense you need this to be the case in order for to go on to argue that to be "cut off" means to not be used in God's service rather than to lose salvation. However, I see no evidence in support of this notion that the central issue is that of being used in God's service.

I have clearly explained why my answer makes perfect sense. I'm sorry it wasn't understood, or a satisfactory answer. Regardless, I have given a reasonable and rational answer.

And, on the other hand, there are clues all over the place that the issue here is membership in God's family - and this includes salvation.

This statement has not been proven.

It is almost universally agreed by scholars that Romans 9-11 is one block.

So, uh, universal agreement trumps or creates truth? No way.

Your view hasn't been proven. Nor has anyone refutes my reasonable and rational explanation.

So let's look at key passages:

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen [Romans 9:1-5, NASB]

lol Thanks for supporting my view! Here, Paul gives exactly what the service of the Jews was. The glory of God, the covenants that they were to protect and spread among the Gentiles, the protectiona and spreading of the Law among the Gentiles, the temple service and promises of God, that they were to protect and share among the Gentiles.

Is Paul lamenting the fact that Jews no longer are of service to God?

Yes, he sure is. And, btw, they were no longer of service to God. How can we know that fact?
Matt 27:51 - 1And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

The veil separated the holy of holies from the holy place. Only the high priest, and only once a year entered into the holy of holies. When the veil was torn by God, that opened up the holy of holies, demonstrating that God no longer was dealing with the Jews as a chosen nation. He certainly will again, during the Tribulation. But not until then.

Or that they are now lost?

That too. Because they had never believed.

Remember the olive tree - Paul decribes the Jews as being cut off.

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? [Romans 9:21-22, NASB]

Until someone proves my view wrong by refutation, vice simply disagreement, I have no reason to change my view.

What is the issue here? Salvation or being used by God?

To be clear, the Jews as a nation were separated from God by reason of failure to believe the Messiah. As such, they also lost their privileged position and God turned to the Gentiles, per Rom 9:25,26 - 25As He saysalso in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’ And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’” 26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said tothem, ‘you are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. [Romans 9:30-31, NASB]

Yes, God turned to the Gentiles who attained righteousness by faith, and will be used for service to God in evangelizing the world, since the Jews completely blew it.

1Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. [Romans 10:1, NASB]

Sure, Paul was concerned for everyone's salvation.

He is writing about the "pruned branches" - Jews who rejected Jesus. And what is the issue? Salvation? Or being used by God?

Both, but to tell an orthodox Jew that God has set them aside was a great affront to them, as I have already explained.

11I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. [Romans 11:11, NASB]

This in no way proves that Rom 11:29 isn't about salvation. God can use the Gentiles BECAUSE they have received salvation by faith.

Are you going to argue that when Paul shortly refers to Gentiles being "grafted in", he is not talking about the matter of their salvation?

Already have.

And if being grafted in is organically connected to salvation what does that imply about what Paul means when he refers to Jews as being pruned (cut off) from the tree?

Neither this passage nor any other teaches that salvation is an "on again and off again" deal.

 

[Drew]

Yeah, I think we've seen your attempts at eradicating Paul's statements as being "universal" prior, and your sight to diminish these facts. The universal quotients of sin in mankind are not eradicated by your misdirect above.

I already posted a counterargument to your position and you have yet to comment on it. Here it is again:

The following is a red-flag that Paul cannot be describing the struggle of a believer:

23but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? [Romans 7:23-24, NASB]]

A believer that is a prisoner to sin? I could spend all day posting scriptures that show that the believer has in fact been set free from this power. So Paul cannot possibly be describing a Christian here. In fact, right here in verse 24, Paul basically telegraphs what he will say in Romans 8 - that the believer has indeed been set free from the condition described here in Romans 7.

Galatians 3:22
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin,

The sin in Jews was not and is not one bit different than the sin in anyone else.

Paul is not talking about a believer here in Galatians 3. I don't know if you intentionally omitted the second part of the verse. Here we go:

But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [Galatians 3:22, NASB]

Paul believes that all humans are lost to sin,..... until they are set free by Jesus! And while this text does not directly say this, it certainly strongly hints of a promised escape to those who believe.

Your unusual theology splits the human person into a rotten half and a redeemed half. I see no support for this at all in the Scriptures - and you have this very odd judgment scenario where the good half gets salvation and the bad half gets wrath. Yes, Paul does indeed write about an indwelling power of sin. But it will be shown rather clearly that this is a state from which the believer is liberated:

24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? [Romans 7:24, NASB]

I suggest Paul then goes on to argue (in Romans 8) that Jesus has indeed set us free from the power of sin. I know you and other think Romans 7 describes the struggles of a believer. But this position cannot survive a careful analysis of the flow of Paul's transition from Romans 7 to Romans 8. Here is just a snippet from Romans 8 that shows that the Romans 7 position is left behind for the believer:

2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. [Roman 8:2, NASB]

You are, I suggest, in an impossible position. You use Romans 7 to argue that Paul the believer has a "part" that is enslaved to the law sin and death. How, then, do you deal with this text?

I think I know what you will do - you will split Paul in two. The problem, of course, is that I do not see how you can say the part that is enslaved in Romans 7 is not now liberated in Romans 8.

But I am curious to see how you argue your position in light of this text from Romans 8.

When Jesus redeems us, he begins healing the whole person - there are no "parts" of the person that are not subject to ultimate redemption. Sure, it's a process and we do continue to sin. But we have certainly been set free from total enslavement to sin.

 

[Drew]

Hi FreeGrace: I do not think we can make progress so I am bowing out, at least for now.

 

[JLB]

What in the world???!!! Of course it does. Spiritual gifts are from God, and He does NOT repent of giving them to believers. Of course they are irrevocable. Unless someone can PROVE from Scripture that any spiritual gift has been revoked. Good luck with that assignment.

As you have been shown, the phrase "without repentance" in Romans 11:29 does not mean "will not take back" but rather means without regret.

God gifts and calling are given without regret even though some have turned away in unbelief and been broken off...

That's the context of the scripture.

Let's review the context.

You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His Goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
Romans 11:19-22

God removed some "branches" (natural Jewish people) from the covenant because of unbelief.

God grafted in some wild branches (Gentile Believers) into covenant relationship because they believed the Gospel.

The calling to natural Jews remains, if they repent and believe.


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

As you have been shown, the phrase "without repentance" in Romans 11:29 does not mean "will not take back" but rather means without regret.

So, trained scholars who actually know Greek got it wrong then??? lol

To say that something is "without regret" means that they do NOT REGRET. So, what is it specifically that Paul says that God does NOT REGRET? His gifts of justification and eternal life, that are given through faith in Christ.

IOW, once given, He NEVER regrets having given them. This is NO DIFFERENT than saying that these gifts are irrevocable.

IOW, these gifts are NEVER taken back. If God does take them back, that would demonstrate regret.

God gifts and calling are given without regret even though some have turned away in unbelief and been broken off...

That's the context of the scripture.

See explanation above. If salvation is taken back, then that demonstrates that God did regret giving it in the first place.

Let's review the context.

You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His Goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
Romans 11:19-22

God removed some "branches" (natural Jewish people) from the covenant because of unbelief.

God grafted in some wild branches (Gentile Believers) into covenant relationship because they believed the Gospel.

The calling to natural Jews remains, if they repent and believe.JLB

None of this has any relevance to Rom 11:29, which is about gifts. There are no gifts mentioned in 11:19-22 or anywhere else in ch 7-11, until v.29.

The "cutting off" relates to service for God. The Jews were quite proud of their supposed service to God, and because of God having chosen them above all nations. Deut 7:6, 14:2, 28:1, 2 Kings 21:7, to cite just a few.

 

[JLB]

To say that something is "without regret" means that they do NOT REGRET. So, what is it specifically that Paul says that God does NOT REGRET? His gifts of justification and eternal life, that are given through faith in Christ.

IOW, once given, He NEVER regrets having given them. This is NO DIFFERENT than saying that these gifts are irrevocable.

Yes I agree!

No different than saying irrevocable, because the biblical word "irrevocable" does not mean "will not take back" but rather means without regret, even though those to whom His calling is made, or His gifts are given, are not seemingly worthy.

God does not "turn away", rather it's the person who turns away through unbelief, and are "broken off".

If you day "broken off" doesn't refer to salvation, then the context of verse 29 does not refer to salvation.

If you believe "broken off" does refer to salvation, then obviously, you don't believe OSAS.

JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes I agree!

No different than saying irrevocable, because the biblical word "irrevocable" does not mean "will not take back" but rather means without regret, even though those to whom His calling is made, or His gifts are given, are not seemingly worthy.

Well, it seems there really isn't agreement. I just explained that "no regret" actually indicates the giver WON'T take back what has been given.

Not that the gift may be taken back without regrets. That just turns the real meaning on its head.

God does not "turn away", rather it's the person who turns away through unbelief, and are "broken off".

There is no contextual support for this conclusion. Nor Scriptural support anywhere in the Bible.

If you day "broken off" doesn't refer to salvation, then the context of verse 29 does not refer to salvation.
If you believe "broken off" does refer to salvation, then obviously, you don't believe OSAS.JLB

Trying to turn upside into upside down just won't work.

The broken off text is not part of 11:29. The gifts of 11:29 were already defined by Paul previously, and that's what he meant in 11:29.

 

[netchaplain]

Irrevocable:
1. not to be revoked or recalled; unable to be repealed or annulled; unalterable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrevocable?s=t

 

[JLB]

Well, it seems there really isn't agreement. I just explained that "no regret" actually indicates the giver WON'T take back what has been given.

Not that the gift may be taken back without regrets. That just turns the real meaning on its head.


There is no contextual support for this conclusion. Nor Scriptural support anywhere in the Bible.


Trying to turn upside into upside down just won't work.

The broken off text is not part of 11:29. The gifts of 11:29 were already defined by Paul previously, and that's what he meant in 11:29.

[edited per ToS 2.4, WIP]

So your last great desperate hope is that: Paul changed the subject matter right when he got to verse 29 of Romans 11?

Is that what you are trying to convince everyone?

19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches,be grafted into their own olive tree?

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
Romans 11:19-32


Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

The nail in the coffin for OSAS...

Otherwise you also will be cut off.


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

That why no one who actually reads the bible, and believes it, gives the false doctrine of OSAS any consideration. Only those who sit expecting to be fed by others, and don't bother reading the bible for themselves could believe such utter nonsense.

So your last great desperate hope is that: Paul changed the subject matter right when he got to verse 29 of Romans 11?

Is that what you are trying to convince everyone?

19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches,be grafted into their own olive tree?

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
Romans 11:19-32
Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
The nail in the coffin for OSAS...
Otherwise you also will be cut off.JLB

Context totally refutes your desperate attempt to deny truth.

Eternal life is a gift of God that is irrevocable.

 

[WIP]

Okay, fellas. Let's keep things civil.

 

[JLB]

Context totally refutes your desperate attempt to deny truth.

Eternal life is a gift of God that is irrevocable.

Yes, God calling and gifts are given without regret, even to those who fall back into unbelief and are cut off.

Paul's warning to Gentiles, to continue in the faith and not be turned away from the hope of salvation, resonates in all his letters to the gentile Churches.

The warning is clear: consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. Romans 11:22


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes, God calling and gifts are given without regret, even to those who fall back into unbelief and are cut off.

I believe the word "irrevocable" is self evident. The calling and gifts of God are irrevocable. And Paul MEANT the gifts of justification and eternal life. If any of these gifts are 'cut off', then obviously God regretted giving them in the first place.

Self evident. Without regret means irrevocable. To have regret means to revoke.